I was responding to hiamnotcool's comment about the current volatility between SK and NK. The troubles were far more vicious and damaging to the UK than sporadic artillery barrages and the odd bomb here and there have been to SK.

The Troubles were a massive financial handicap for the UK. The IRA did billions of pounds woirth of damage during their bombing campaign. It's goal was, after all, to destroy Northern Ireland's economy and to make NI a drain on the British exchequer. This it did. Add the massive expense of maintaining 30,000 soldiers in fortified barracks there for forty years, next to zero foreign investment (for obvious reasons), the highest prison population in Europe, the massive state subsidy from London just to keep the Ulster economy from total collapse, etc. etc. Of course it wasn't a full scale war between modern armies. But the Troubles were a very substantial financial burden on the UK. This was especially so because for most of the 1970's and 1980's Britain was, as they say, 'the sick man of Europe'.

The Troubles were no small thing. Far worse than anything North Korea has been able to inflict on the South since the armistice. It was emphatically not a case of "the odd bomb here and there". The bombs exploded on an almost daily basis.

Add the massive expense of maintaining 30,000 soldiers in fortified barracks there for forty years, next to zero foreign investment (for obvious reasons), the highest prison population in Europe, the massive state subsidy from London just to keep the Ulster economy from total collapse, etc. etc. Of course it wasn't a full scale war between modern armies. But the Troubles were a very substantial financial burden on the UK. This was especially so because for most of the 1970's and 1980's Britain was, as they say, 'the sick man of Europe'.

The Troubles were no small thing. Far worse than anything North Korea has been able to inflict on the South since the armistice. It was emphatically not a case of "the odd bomb here and there". The bombs exploded on an almost daily basis.

I'd say while significant, one must remember that Britain started out in comparitively much better shape the S.Korea post-Korean War.

As for "far worse..."
I think having a quarter of a million troops garrisoned along the DMZ is comparable to the UK's 30,000 in Northern Ireland.

Heck you could compare it to the urban riots and police presence we've had in the US in the inner cities.

If The Troubles were as bad as you are trying to make them out to be, Britain would be a shambles. It would be like Croatia, still sorta recovering. It's not.

Quote:

Also your reasoning is a bit skewed, what are you saying? That the higher body count connected with the 'war on drugs' means that conflicts with smaller death tolls are not conflicts? Over 160 people were killed in the latest conflict in Gaza are you saying that was not a conflict because at the same time more people died in traffic accidents in China?

I'm saying that while it may seem significant to you, the fact is that The Troubles didn't involve devastation to the British landscape, infrastructure, and economy. N.I. would be a different story. It's been something comparable in expenditure and scope to fighting the War on Drugs in the U.S. (Actually, probably less so given the amount of foreign aid the US has given). That is to say, it's more of a criminal situation than a military one. That military and paramilitary units were involved does not mean it was something comparable to the Korean War, and it's expenditure did not rise to the level of that of S. Korea in dealing with N.Korea.

Quote:

The troubles were far more vicious and damaging to the UK than sporadic artillery barrages and the odd bomb here and there have been to SK.

Seriously, you're somehow claiming that The Troubles superseedes "The Most Heavily Armed Border in the World"? You can claim equality and make a credible case (but again, the UK started in much better shape), dismissing Korea's circumstances is just silly.

Quote:

Seriously, you dont think the troubles have had a serious effect on the economic and political climate of NI? You don't think the lasting sectarian segregation of communities behind peace walls constitute an ongoing civil war?

Of course

Northern Ireland is a "small state". To compare Northern Ireland to S.Korea is completely Apples and Oranges. It's like using Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, or Monaco to prove something.

==============================================

Quote:

so they can no longer reason or question why social welfare is 2nd lowest in the OECD with the highest rate of suicide while military spending ranks 12th in the world, in due large part to the actions and mindset of vulture-like profiteers, is not an educational situation to envy.

I think you're overreaching on education's impact.

Social Welfare and Defense Spending policy is more from pocketbook voting and policies and concerns over not being invaded, than how many hours one spends in a hagwon.

And people here do question. That's why some favor a hard-line with North Korea and some favor a more conciliatory approach. That's why some vote for a more socialist-friendly government and others for a more capitalist-friendly approach.

Korea rose from poverty after Japanese occupation and a civil war, but at the end of the day it's the truth. Can you name any other country in the top 10 that went through a civil war or any domestic conflict close to the scale of the Korean war after 1950?
Also, free thinking, dissent, imagination, they may not hold the value in some countries that they do in the West. I find it surprising too, but conformity can have it's own rewards. I get frustrated with the Korean system because I am from the West, but at the same time I can easily see how it made this ranking. It isn't rocket science, they just worked themselves to the bone. Just give them props and try to see what the strong point of the school system is. I get worried when people from my side of the globe can't tell when they are falling behind.

Now as to any country rising from the ashes after going through a conflict similar in scale to the Korean war...well, now that you mention it, Japan was reduced to dust by B-52 bombers and two atomic bombs (the only time they have have been used in combat history)...you may quibble and say this was 5 years before 1950...which is exactly the point.

Japan was reduced to rubble, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps (with the aid of the US commissioning weapons from them to kill Koreans from 1950) and blazed their trail to recovery, a trail which Korea followed like a dilligent Confucian lad.

Uh no, Japan did not go through a civil war. Japan is not a divided country with world powers manipulating and playing both sides for their own benefit. I'm pretty sure Japan had some leftist revolutionaries back in the day that caused problems but they were nowhere near the scope of the attempted coups, assassination attempts, and purges Korea has gone through until recently. Seriously, in the past 5 years S Korea has been through an artillery and naval attack, both of which wreaked havoc on it's currency and economy. Right when it was about to host the G20 N Korea hit it. It's sad that people have to keep being reminded of this especially when they live in the country. It's generally thought of as one of the most volatile places in the world, it's going to be hard for us Westerners to get why Koreans act the way they do sometimes. I'm not here defending the weird ways foreigners get treated sometimes, or any of the ways the school system has mistreated its NETs in the past or present. I'm just saying anybody that looks at the hours and research that is put into the schools here could see this coming. Anybody that has worked at a school here should have seen this coming. S Korea has found a system that works in it's native environment, it is brutal but effective. There are other countries that have similar histories to S Korea, but like I said you won't find any of them in the top 10.

Basically it's a marathon race and S Korea has been sprinting for the past 50 years. They are finally catching up, so now maybe they can find their stride, relax a bit, and look at what other countries are doing. And then N Korea will come along and !@$!$ it all up again.

Your basic mistake (other than being unaware of the fact that Japan had a sizeable student movent until the 80's; it got to the point where a commercial jet was hijacked and forced to fly to North Korea...other incidents include a leading Socialist candidate for prime minster being stabbed to death on TV) is your failure to understand that the civil disturbances have been largely a result of a certain group of spineless families deliberately sucking up to other countries (China-Japan-US). In other words, they have brought it onto themselves, by their mistreatment of their own people.

Once the collaborators secure a cozy relationship with a bigger brother, they set about working together for mutual benefits, often at the expense of Minsu and Haeyoung, who typically are made to labor more than their equivalents in other countries of similar economic stature.

One of the bigger of the benefits comes about by manufacturing conflict and fear for the purchase of arms, a tactic actually quite common throughout the world, and also quite lucrative here. The reason why those 'attacks' didn't have a long-term lingering effect is that behind closed doors LMB was able to reassure the key players that it was all for show (you may want to have a look at an analysis of the 'evidence' which was presented as proof for the Cheonam...basically the marked inscriptions were neatly done on a surface which had been cleaned of corrosive rust...because everyone knows you label your weapons after they've been used and have lain on the seabed for several months...of course the analysis came about long after the 'official' version of events had been transmitted to the public).

So, to recap: people being made to study like drones so they can no longer reason or question why social welfare is 2nd lowest in the OECD with the highest rate of suicide while military spending ranks 12th in the world, in due large part to the actions and mindset of vulture-like profiteers, is not an educational situation to envy.

A similar situation actually exists in Japan (again, who do you think people like Park Chung-hee got his ideas from), but many of the people don't buy in and create their own islands of subcultures whose aims and sentiments deliberately contradict the trends manufactured for the masses.

Quote:

Quote:
Seriously, in the past 5 years S Korea has been through an artillery and naval attack, both of which wreaked havoc on it's currency and economy.

I was here. It didn't wreak havoc. It caused a minor blip. Quit being so melodramatic.

Well-observed.

Quote:

As a military history and aviation afficianado, I am obsessively compulsed to point out that it was B-29s, not B-52s.

I stand corrected on the number. For the people being blown to bits it could've been B-2012's for all they cared, but yeah for military buffs it's a point of contention.

Go back and read the first sentence of my response. I acknowledged that Japan had a leftist revolutionary movement. I'm pretty sure they took an embassy at some point too. It still pales in comparison. Some Japanese students hijacked a plane, ok, compare that to a South Korean airliner being blown up in 1987 by North Korea. I really can't see how you can see the situation of both countries being equally as difficult. Are you really trying to say that Japan is just as volatile as South Korea? I don't feel like comparing incidents in both countries one by one, so just let me know if that is how you feel.

Your take on the Cheonan is ridiculous. Nothing has been confirmed, but I'm not going to fault the Korean government for assuming it was N Korea. I don't see political motivation involved in that, I just see common sense. If 20 years later we see that they are wrong, then I would still support the decision to err on the side of caution. At this point I believe it was N Korea until it is confirmed that it wasn't. Do you think they faked the artillery attack too? I'm not sure where to go with any of that. It's a real threat.

Steelrails, you are joking right? It was an artillery attack and a Naval Attack. 46 Sailors were killed in that Naval attack, it was no small move on the part of N Korea. It led to the S Korean Minister of Defense being sacked. And yes, through time events like that will have a massive effect on other countries willingness to come to South Korea investing money and conducting trade. I was here too when it happened. It wasn't discussed too much, but it was a significant moment in the political landscape. I think it had a big impact on a lot of the students that weren't taking the N Korean threat seriously up to that point, but that is just something I take away from the conversations I had with them at the time.

Add the massive expense of maintaining 30,000 soldiers in fortified barracks there for forty years, next to zero foreign investment (for obvious reasons), the highest prison population in Europe, the massive state subsidy from London just to keep the Ulster economy from total collapse, etc. etc. Of course it wasn't a full scale war between modern armies. But the Troubles were a very substantial financial burden on the UK. This was especially so because for most of the 1970's and 1980's Britain was, as they say, 'the sick man of Europe'.

The Troubles were no small thing. Far worse than anything North Korea has been able to inflict on the South since the armistice. It was emphatically not a case of "the odd bomb here and there". The bombs exploded on an almost daily basis.

I'd say while significant, one must remember that Britain started out in comparitively much better shape the S.Korea post-Korean War.

As for "far worse..."
I think having a quarter of a million troops garrisoned along the DMZ is comparable to the UK's 30,000 in Northern Ireland.

Heck you could compare it to the urban riots and police presence we've had in the US in the inner cities.

If The Troubles were as bad as you are trying to make them out to be, Britain would be a shambles. It would be like Croatia, still sorta recovering. It's not.

Quote:

Also your reasoning is a bit skewed, what are you saying? That the higher body count connected with the 'war on drugs' means that conflicts with smaller death tolls are not conflicts? Over 160 people were killed in the latest conflict in Gaza are you saying that was not a conflict because at the same time more people died in traffic accidents in China?

I'm saying that while it may seem significant to you, the fact is that The Troubles didn't involve devastation to the British landscape, infrastructure, and economy. N.I. would be a different story. It's been something comparable in expenditure and scope to fighting the War on Drugs in the U.S. (Actually, probably less so given the amount of foreign aid the US has given). That is to say, it's more of a criminal situation than a military one. That military and paramilitary units were involved does not mean it was something comparable to the Korean War, and it's expenditure did not rise to the level of that of S. Korea in dealing with N.Korea.

Quote:

The troubles were far more vicious and damaging to the UK than sporadic artillery barrages and the odd bomb here and there have been to SK.

Seriously, you're somehow claiming that The Troubles superseedes "The Most Heavily Armed Border in the World"? You can claim equality and make a credible case (but again, the UK started in much better shape), dismissing Korea's circumstances is just silly.

Quote:

Seriously, you dont think the troubles have had a serious effect on the economic and political climate of NI? You don't think the lasting sectarian segregation of communities behind peace walls constitute an ongoing civil war?

Of course

Northern Ireland is a "small state". To compare Northern Ireland to S.Korea is completely Apples and Oranges. It's like using Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, or Monaco to prove something.

==============================================

Quote:

so they can no longer reason or question why social welfare is 2nd lowest in the OECD with the highest rate of suicide while military spending ranks 12th in the world, in due large part to the actions and mindset of vulture-like profiteers, is not an educational situation to envy.

I think you're overreaching on education's impact.

Social Welfare and Defense Spending policy is more from pocketbook voting and policies and concerns over not being invaded, than how many hours one spends in a hagwon.

And people here do question. That's why some favor a hard-line with North Korea and some favor a more conciliatory approach. That's why some vote for a more socialist-friendly government and others for a more capitalist-friendly approach.

Ok I was not comparing the troubles to the Korean war I was comparing it to the damage inflicted on SK by NK since the armistice.

The reason this was brought up was because a poster said that no other country has experienced the volatility that SK has because of NK. He went on to cite the artillery barrages. My point was that the troubles were more serious than the NK acts of provocation.

War in NI impacted on Britain because a) NI is a part of the wider country, not a seperate independent entity and b) The war came to the streets of England, Wales and Scotland.

It was quite clearly a conflict and a conflict that reached even into my tiny town in the shires. More death occured on the streets of the UK&NI than has on the 'Most heavily guarded border in the world' since the armistice.

Go back and read the first sentence of my response. I acknowledged that Japan had a leftist revolutionary movement. I'm pretty sure they took an embassy at some point too. It still pales in comparison. Some Japanese students hijacked a plane, ok, compare that to a South Korean airliner being blown up in 1987 by North Korea. I really can't see how you can see the situation of both countries being equally as difficult. Are you really trying to say that Japan is just as volatile as South Korea? I don't feel like comparing incidents in both countries one by one, so just let me know if that is how you feel.

Your take on the Cheonan is ridiculous. Nothing has been confirmed, but I'm not going to fault the Korean government for assuming it was N Korea. I don't see political motivation involved in that, I just see common sense. If 20 years later we see that they are wrong, then I would still support the decision to err on the side of caution. At this point I believe it was N Korea until it is confirmed that it wasn't. Do you think they faked the artillery attack too? I'm not sure where to go with any of that. It's a real threat.

Steelrails, you are joking right? It was an artillery attack and a Naval Attack. 46 Sailors were killed in that Naval attack, it was no small move on the part of N Korea. It led to the S Korean Minister of Defense being sacked. And yes, through time events like that will have a massive effect on other countries willingness to come to South Korea investing money and conducting trade. I was here too when it happened. It wasn't discussed too much, but it was a significant moment in the political landscape. I think it had a big impact on a lot of the students that weren't taking the N Korean threat seriously up to that point, but that is just something I take away from the conversations I had with them at the time.

Determinded to go down with your own ship, eh? Alright, have it your way...

ROK has deliberately chosen to remain somewhat volatile. The North has offered to broker a peace treaty on more than one occasion and has been rebuffed by the ROK/US.

Might have something to do with the fact that with peace folks might not see too much point in keeping so many US troops and bases here (hence no need to purchase weapons and poof! there goes that honey pot of easy money, as well as the collaborators' power base). The timing of the Cheonan coincided with a strong movemnet in Japan to rid Okinawa of all US bases. Had that succeeded it might have gotten more than one ROK citizen to reflect on the local situation...one wonders if you've ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin...

Speaking of the Cheonan, it isn't my 'take'. If you'd take a second and ModEdit and actually check the laboratory analysis of the alleged North Korean torpedo you'd see it's all laid out in cold scientific fact.

Which leads us back to the topic. The fact that so many people can continually have the wool pulled over their eyes and be resigned to grinding study and work conditions is something less than ideal. You want to gloss over and not deal with the rate of suicide, number of full-time positions liquidated in favor of hiring part-timers, clear indications that ROK citizens aren't happy with their quality of life, et. al, that's fine, but it's been established that you're starting to grasp at straws now by shifting your argument all over the place and avoiding the issues which contradict the results of that poll as anything but a shallow reflection of being able to memorize concepts for a paper test.

Ok I was not comparing the troubles to the Korean war I was comparing it to the damage inflicted on SK by NK since the armistice.

The reason this was brought up was because a poster said that no other country has experienced the volatility that SK has because of NK. He went on to cite the artillery barrages. My point was that the troubles were more serious than the NK acts of provocation.

War in NI impacted on Britain because a) NI is a part of the wider country, not a seperate independent entity and b) The war came to the streets of England, Wales and Scotland.

It was quite clearly a conflict and a conflict that reached even into my tiny town in the shires. More death occured on the streets of the UK&NI than has on the 'Most heavily guarded border in the world' since the armistice.

Sorry but I have to disagree with your opinion. I think all things considered S Korea has to deal with far more problems with NK than the UK does with Ireland. I guess that is a matter of opinion though. If you are from the UK, specifically a village that was affected by that conflict I can understand that from your perspective I may be wrong. At any rate I said after 1950, so the Korean war is included in my reasoning and that was a lot more devastating than the conflict between the UK and NI. Not only that, but the reality of a long drawn out guerilla campaign is going to have a different effect on a country than the possibility of a massive artillery campaign and offensive launched by a conventional army at any moment. The conventional aspect is the reason for conscription and the militarization of the general population here. I don't see it as avoidable. I think that is what leads to the lack of creativity and the group think here that people with the luxury of not being born into these circumstances complain about so often. I think S Korea has figured out a way to still flourish academically without picking up the free thinking aspects of the West. If that is their preference then so be it.

A user has removed from this site for using some distasteful language in insulting another users opinions. Any future account set up by this person will also be deleted upon detection. Remember, it is not the username that is banned, it is the user.

Ok I was not comparing the troubles to the Korean war I was comparing it to the damage inflicted on SK by NK since the armistice.

The reason this was brought up was because a poster said that no other country has experienced the volatility that SK has because of NK. He went on to cite the artillery barrages. My point was that the troubles were more serious than the NK acts of provocation.

War in NI impacted on Britain because a) NI is a part of the wider country, not a seperate independent entity and b) The war came to the streets of England, Wales and Scotland.

It was quite clearly a conflict and a conflict that reached even into my tiny town in the shires. More death occured on the streets of the UK&NI than has on the 'Most heavily guarded border in the world' since the armistice.

Sorry but I have to disagree with your opinion. I think all things considered S Korea has to deal with far more problems with NK than the UK does with Ireland. I guess that is a matter of opinion though. If you are from the UK, specifically a village that was affected by that conflict I can understand that from your perspective I may be wrong. At any rate I said after 1950, so the Korean war is included in my reasoning and that was a lot more devastating than the conflict between the UK and NI. Not only that, but the reality of a long drawn out guerilla campaign is going to have a different effect on a country than the possibility of a massive artillery campaign and offensive launched by a conventional army at any moment. The conventional aspect is the reason for conscription and the militarization of the general population here. I don't see it as avoidable. I think that is what leads to the lack of creativity and the group think here that people with the luxury of not being born into these circumstances complain about so often. I think S Korea has figured out a way to still flourish academically without picking up the free thinking aspects of the West. If that is their preference then so be it.

If you are going to include the Korean war then yeah, I am not going to try and say that the troubles were bigger than that conflict.

Back on topic though, yes of course kudos to Korea and it has certainly done well. However, the rankings are still flawed because of its educational attainment category. Other tests are better at doing what Pearson has tried to do, primary amongst them is the Pisa test.

Determinded to go down with your own ship, eh? Alright, have it your way...

ROK has deliberately chosen to remain somewhat volatile. The North has offered to broker a peace treaty on more than one occasion and has been rebuffed by the ROK/US.

A little twisted up on this one, aren't 'cha?

Are you sure that the DPRK has offered peace treaty negotiations with the ROK?

From all that I've read and seen, the DPRK has basically said 'f u' to the ROK, and wanted to negotiate only with the US on the matter.

Look, Cap, you just don't UNDERSTAND!!! The DPRK is a trustworthy entity man! We should believe their batkitten crazy PR more than, you know, actual news! (I use kitten as a substitute for curse words)

Whoa, what? When did this thread stop being about Korea's education system and this silly ranking?

It's very easy to say something like I don't agree with you, therefore you're a North Korean spy, so you are definitely an evil person or I don't agree with you and you're a troll without any good reason in Dave's ESL Cafe. I know. It's very sad. People should stop doing this.

Back to the topic.

adzee1 wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-education-school-2011-12?op=1

Read this and see how far this system is from that of Korea... Maybe they should adopt some of these practices if they want that coveted top spot.

This will be absolutely impossible for South Korea to adopt the Finnish system.

First, the South Korea's public education system isn't a public education system per se. It's a propaganda tool. It's a political organ of the South Korean society. You can see that Gyochong, Korea's only legal teachers' "union", is an education association for promoting a political ideology (mostly of right-wing liberal democracy).

Second, South Korea doesn't have a strong public education system since the beginning, thanks to the Korean War and all the political turmoils.

Third, South Koreans still have an unchanged collectivist mindset. It's very difficult to run a competent modern public school system when a country has too many citizens thinking badly of individualism.

Fourth, South Korean parents are too obsessed with their children's success. Those parents already lost the true meaning of education to their kids. You cannot have a good public education system when the majority of parents makes their children into anti-social monsters who only study and think plastic surgery or make-ups are very important. Bad kids makes everything worse.

Fifth, the whole country loves money and real estates like cocaine. Good public schools in Korea often significantly influence the real estate values and personal incomes around the area. Some aspect of this country's public education system acts like a private business enterprise. It's a bad way to run a public education system in the long run.